2/3/15 5:03 PM EST

Two newspapers are moving to protect the public's right of access to court filings in a lawsuit that has already triggered sensational headlines for leveling underage sex allegations against one of America's most prominent lawyers and a member of the British royal family.

On Monday, the Palm Beach Post and Palm Beach Daily News asked to intervene in the suit, which accuses federal prosecutors of violating the Crime Victims Rights Act when they cut a deal with billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein to end a federal investigation into claims that he regularly paid for sex with underage girls.

Epstein's attorneys are trying to prevent publication of records of plea negotiations between his counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office in southern Florida. Lawyers for some of Epstein's victims obtained the records last year after a federal appeals court ruled that they were not legally privileged. However, Epstein's lawyers are now arguing that some or all of the documents should not be filed publicly because they were considered confidential at the time and could invade his privacy.

Lawyers for the newspapers are resisting the secrecy, arguing that the records of how Epstein's plea was negotiated are critical to understanding the litigation.

"Such plea negotiation correspondence will be relevant to the central issue in this case – whether the Plaintiffs were afforded their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act notwithstanding...Epstein’s wealth and access to influential legal representation. As such, the evidence will bear on a question of profound public concern: in this instance, did our justice system live up to its commitment to treat all who come before it with basic fairness and dignity?" the papers' attorneys wrote in their motion (posted here).

"By seeking a blanket sealing order, regardless of the nature of the communication and regardless of the type of motion to which it is attached, Epstein is attempting to reverse the burden of proof and circumvent the law requiring that he show 'good cause' for the sealing of any court records. This is simply improper," the lawyers said.

The suit has simmered for years with little attention, but exploded into the news in December when POLITICO reported that an alleged Epstein victim identified as "Jane Doe #3" filed a court pleading claiming he farmed her out as a "sex slave" to former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz and Britain's Prince Andrew, both of whom were friends of Epstein. Dershowitz has vigorously denied the allegations he had sex with Jane Doe # 3. Through a spokesman, Andrew has denied having sex with any underage girls.

The claims against Dershowitz or Epstein aren't directly related to the secrecy dispute, although Epstein's lawyers have argued that the recent allegations are designed to gain media attention and are evidence of why the plea records should be kept under wraps. The attorneys for Epstein, who ultimately pled guilty to two state prostitution solicitation offenses and served 13 months in jail, also contend that the details of the plea negotiations aren't actually relevant to the core of the suit.

"Whether the plaintiffs’ CVRA rights were violated is an issue that is extrinsic from the detailed exchanges of emails and letters that constitute the plea and non-prosecution negotiations between Mr. Epstein’s counsel and the government. Providing a temporary protection to those letters and emails subject to a motion to unseal will fairly accommodate the public’s right of access and the rights of parties to pursue Sixth Amendment mandated plea negotiations in good faith and subject to the traditional practice of relative confidentiality," Epstein's legal team, headed by renowned Florida lawyer Roy Black wrote in a motion filed last week (and posted here).

West Palm Beach, Fla.-based U.S. District Court Judge Keith Marra hasn't issued a final ruling on the matter, but there's a sign he's skeptical of the claims for secrecy. After both sides in the case seemed to bless keeping the plea records secret, the judge said doing so appeared to be at odds with legal precedent.

"Public policy favors judicial records being open to the public," Marra wrote in an order posted here. "In order for the Court to take action inconsistent with that policy, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must provide adequate justification overcoming the presumption that filings in civil cases be public."

Lawyers for the alleged victims in the case now say they oppose the secrecy. "If Epstein’s protective order is entered, much of the litigation will essentially have to be carried on in secret, as the victims will file correspondence under seal, and then the Government or putative intervenors (i.e., Epstein, Dershowitz, or others) will file responding correspondence under seal," attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell wrote in a court pleading last week (posted here).

A ruling on the secrecy issue is expected shortly.

Meanwhile, in other developments in the case:

—Jane Doe #3 is denying she has ever made claims she had sex with President Bill Clinton, who was also friendly with Epstein. It's unclear who made such claims, although Dershowitz said in a court declaration that the woman made false statements about being on Epstein's private island with Clinton.

"I have seen reports saying or implying I had sex with former President Bill Clinton on Little Saint James Island. Former President Bill Clinton was present on the Island at a time when I was also present on the Island, but I have never had sexual relations with Clinton nor have I ever claimed to have had such relations. I have never seen him have sexual relations with anyone," she wrote in an affidavit filed last month (and posted here).

—Dershowitz filed another pleading Monday angrily denying what he called the "scurrilous" allegations against him. He also asks "why Jane Doe
#3, with an obvious financial motive for fabrication of salacious accusations, waited almost seven years to lob a stink bomb into a proceeding in which she has no right to participate."

Jane Doe #3 has claimed that sex with Epstein, Dershowitz and others often followed massages. In his latest filing (posted here), lawyers for the Harvard professor emeritus railed against "perjurious" smears against their client. They also acknowledge he did receive a massage at one of Epstein's residence, but not from a teenage girl.

"In fact, the only massage Prof. Dershowitz ever received at any of Epstein’s homes was from a professional massage therapist who was in her 30’s or 40s," the new filing says.

6/11/09 11:52 PM EST

The long-running prosecution stemming from leaks of classified information to top officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee fizzled out tonight with the only government employee charged in the case, ex-Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, seeing his 12-year prison sentence reduced to 10 months in a halfway house.

5/4/09 3:07 PM EST

A federal judge has formally dismissed the criminal case against two pro-Israel lobbyists accused of conspiring to obtain and distribute classified information.

Judge T.S. Ellis III, who's based in Alexandria, Va., entered the order Friday, the same day the Justice Department asked to drop the case against Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, the two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Prosecutors cited adverse judicial rulings, as well as concerns that a trial, which was set for June, could expose classifed information.

The dismissal aspect of Ellis' order, which was posted on the court's docket today, is essentially a formality. What was more interesting is that he said he is expecting some kind of action from the government regarding Larry Franklin, a Pentagon analyst who pled guilty early on in the case.

Ellis sentenced Franklin in 2006 to more than 12 years in prison for disclosing classified information to Rosen, Weissman and others. However, Franklin agreed to cooperate with the government and never reported to jail.

"It is further ordered that the government is directed to advise the Court, by 5:00 p.m., Thursday May 14, 2009, regarding when it contemplates filing an appropriate motion with respect to defendant Franklin," Ellis's new order says.

Lawyers involved in the case expected Franklin to seek a reduction in his sentence once the trial against Rosen and Weissman was complete. Now that the trial will never happen, it's an open question of how much of a sentence reduction Franklin will get. Presumably, it's not his fault the case was abandoned. In any event, Ellis will have to rule on any sentence reduction. The judge may have to make a hypothetical judgment about how much Franklin's testimony may have helped in a trial that will never take place.

4/20/09 11:29 AM EST

Harman isn't going to be fond of being mentioned in the same breath as Blago, so it should be stressed that, unlike Blago, she has never been charged with anything. Also she flatly denies the story, which first surfaced in 2006 and is part of the CQ account Jeff Stein just posted.

The gist of the story is that, in exchange for help in winning the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Harman agreed to make an effort to seek the dismissal of a controversial classified information trafficking proseuction against two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It's not clear who was on the other side of the conversation, which was allegedly intercepted by the National Security Agency. Some reports say it was a wealthy Democratic donor, Haim Saban.

If it happened, this sounds to me like political horse trading that voters might or might not find objectionable, and not a criminal offense. I realize some people may find it odd to consider a criminal prosecution as a potential part of a political deal, but prosecutions are inherently political in that they are brought by the executive branch. If Harman felt the two ex-Aipac men shouldn't have been prosecuted, she was certainly free to express that to the Justice Department. If the donor agreed to support her effort to get the intelligence committee chair, that's a great story. I'm just not sure it's a crime.

The alleged series of events strikes me as similar to U.S. Attorney Pat Fitzgerald's charge that Blago told the Tribune Company he would only encourage a state agency to refinance Tribune's debt related to Wrigley Field if the Chicago Tribune changed its editorial stance towards him and fired a top editor. Again, a great story if true, but I don't see the crime. The only way to make something like that a crime is to dress it up as some sort of "honest services fraud"--a kind of prosecution which is often a reach. (I'm not passing judgment on the multitude of other charges leveled at Blago.)

Stein's story on this says that Justice Department prosecutorts saw Harman's actions as a "completed crime." However, he also notes that another source viewed the incident more as "ethical corruption" than corruption in the legal sense. While Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency takes that comment as intended to apply to Harman's alleged acts, I read it as referring to the Bush administration's alleged decision to drop the Harman probe to seek her help on the warrantless wiretapping front.

3/21/09 8:47 AM EST

Earlier this month, a longtime employee fired from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steve Rosen, filed a slander suit against the group. As a public service, I'm posting a copy of the suit here.

Rosen and another former AIPAC staffer, Keith Weissman, are awaiting trial in federal court on charges that they violated the Espionage Act by conspiring to obtain classified information and distribute it to journalists, diplomats and others.

In the suit, Rosen alleges that he was repeatedly slandered by AIPAC when it explained his firing by publicly claiming that he violated the group's standards. Rosen, who worked for AIPAC for nearly 23 years, asserts that the group essentially threw him over the side in order to curry favor with federal prosecutors who had the organization in their crosshairs. He says he didn't violate the law or AIPAC's rules and he insists that the group's leaders knew about all his activities.

I asked AIPAC for comment on Rosen's suit. Patrick Dorton, who serves as the group's spokesperson on the matter and is also named as a defendant in the slander suit, offered the following: "The complaint paints a false picture of what happened. The organization intends to defend itself vigorously. AIPAC made all decisions in this situation with a determination to do the right thing."

Some may wonder why Rosen, who worked as the group's director of research and information and later as its director of foreign policy issues, decided to sue for defamation rather than wrongful dismissal. The suit does not indicate that Rosen had any contract or employment agreement with AIPAC ,so it is likely the group had the right to terminate him for any reason not expressly prohibited by law. (It couldn't fire him because of his race, religion, or in the District of Columbia, for example, his personal appearance.)

Rosen and Weissman were fired in March 2005, more than six months after word of the FBI investigation into AIPAC was broken by CBS. The men have pled not guilty in the criminal case, which has been pending since 2005. A trial is set for June.

3/18/09 2:53 PM EST

The Justice Department is passing up a chance to challenge a key court ruling it lost last month in its criminal case against two pro-Israel lobbyists accused of trafficking in classified information.

On Feb. 24, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld trial court rulings allowing the former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, to introduce classified FBI and State Department reports they contend are relevant to their defense. The pair, who have pled not guilty, are accused of conspiring to obtain classified information and relay it to journalists, diplomats and others.

The government had until last week to ask the full 11-judge en banc bench of the appeals court to take up the issues. There was some reason to think an en banc rehearing might be sought or granted, since the court's full bench used a similar situation back in 1985 to deliver a seminal en banc opinion on the use of classified information at trial.

However, this time, the government seems to have decided to stick with the hand they were dealt. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Alexandria, Va., declined to comment beyond saying prosecutors would respond in court.

Why It Matters: By not asking for an en banc hearing, the government has removed one of the last obstacles standing in the way of a trial for Rosen and Weissman, who were indicted way back in 2005. They've had something like twenty trial dates scheduled and canceled since. Now they're on for June 2.

The prosecution is significant because Rosen and Weissman arguably did little more in gathering the allegedly classified information from government employees than many reporters do each day when they approach official sources. One official who provided information to the pair, Lawrence Franklin, pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors.